I recently saw a documentary on the David Camm case - he was initially convicted of murdering his wife and two young children, but was later acquitted. His lawyer posed the question: how do you overcome evidence?, and answered: by speculation, innuendo and character assassination.

That reminded me of Westerfield's trial. The entire case against him was based on speculation, and the prosecution used the computer porn to assassinate his character.

Synopsis
On February 1, 2002, in San Diego, California, Brenda Van Dam went out with her friends. Her husband, Damon Van Dam, was left to look after their daughter Danielle Van Dam. Once Brenda returned, she went to bed assuming her daughter was safe asleep in her room. The next morning, the couple went to her room to wake her up, but Danielle was missing from her room. After a while of searching for her with no success, they called police. Danielle would never return home. Her badly decomposed body was found on February 27th, 2002.

The Evidence
Took a Jacket to a dry cleaners that contained reddish stains
Similar reddish stains were found in his RV
fingerprints not of the suspect
Child Pornography
hairs similar to a dog's motor home bed comforter
hairs on a bedsheets in his home
acrylic fibers on Danielle's necklace, Westerfield's home, SUV, laundry, and bedding

Processing the Evidence
Reddish stains on jacket were confirmed to be human blood.
The Reddish stains found in his RV were also confirmed to be blood.
Fingerprints belonged to Danielle.
The dog hairs found to be consistent to the Van Dam family dog.
Foreign hair on Westerfield's bed was consistent to Danielle's hair.
acrylic fibers found on Danielle's body were consistent to acrylic fibers found in Westerfield's home.
Child Pornography was found on his home computer.

Implications
The analysis results indicated that Danielle had in fact been in Westerfield's RV and in his home, something he had not disclosed to police.

Result of analysis concluded that Danielle had indeed been inside Westerfield's Motor Home
Final Results
The court found Westerfield guilty of first degree murder, and was sentenced to death. He is currently incarcerated in San Quentin State Prison.
Westerfield is currently appealing his case under California state law.

There was one handprint in the RV which was identified as Danielle’s. The match was made on the rear of the fingers (and not on the more common fingertips), and using rehydrated skin, so is that match as reliable as a normal fingerprint? There were also foreign fingerprints in her house, on the route the kidnapper would have taken, which the police didn’t try to identify. Whose prints were they?

Only one small and faint stain on his jacket, and only one drop in his RV, were identified as Danielle’s blood. Blood spatter analysis was not conducted on them. As this was believed to be a sexual crime, it is significant that no Danielle blood was found on either his home bed or his motor home bed. There was also foreign blood on her own bed, the bed she was kidnapped from, which the police didn’t try to identify. Whose blood was it?

There was pornography on his computer, and some of these images were described as “questionable”. So maybe those girls were under 18 and maybe they weren’t, but they obviously weren’t nearly as young as Danielle. If any of those images were obviously child porn, he would have been arrested immediately. So should they have been allowed in court as evidence of motive?

Two hairs which could have come from the van Dams’ dog were found on his motor home comforter; and six hairs which could have come from Danielle were found on his home bed. “Could have” because these matches were based on visual examination and mitochondrial DNA and not on nuclear DNA, and so aren’t certain. These were not the only hairs found, so it is important to note that Danielle and other family members had been in his house earlier that week selling Girl Scout cookies, while he was doing laundry, so they would have shed hairs while there (some of which might have been shed directly onto his laundry), and some of those hairs could have been transferred to his motor home, and some even taken on his laundry directly to his bed. Proof of such transfer is provided by the fact that no one is claiming that the dog was kidnapped, yet dog hairs were in his motor home. There was also a foreign human hair under her body, which the police didn’t try to identify. Whose was it?

Only one acrylic fiber found on Danielle's body was consistent with acrylic fibers found in Westerfield's home and SUV (but significantly not his RV), and that one could have become entangled in her hair during the cookie sale. It is significant that there were many other fibers on her body which were not consistent with fibers in his home or SUV or RV. It may also be significant that most of the consistent ones were in his laundry (and none in his RV), which could indicate that these fibers came from the van Dams, and were shed in his house during the cookie sale, most being shed on his laundry.

Westerfield DID disclose to the police that Danielle had been in his home, there was no reason why he shouldn’t have. He wasn’t aware she had been in his RV so he couldn’t disclose that. She had presumably sneaked into it, as she had plenty of opportunity as it had often been parked very near her house. It must be mentioned that, because there are questions about the evidence of her in his RV (such as the validity of the claimed fingerprint match), there is some doubt as to whether she had been in it. It is significant that the police dogs didn’t alert to her scent there, so even if she had been in it, it must have been some time earlier, and therefore this trace evidence was not proof he had kidnapped her.

Danielle Van Dam Case
Danielle Van Dam was a seven year old girl from the Sabre Springs neighborhood of San Diego, California, who disappeared from her bedroom during the night of February 1–2, 2002. Her body was found by searchers on February 27 in a remote area. Police suspected a neighbor, David Alan Westerfield. He was arrested, tried, and convicted of kidnapping and first-degree murder. He was sentenced to death and is currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison.

Defense Case
Feldman argued that no evidence of Westerfield was found in the van Dam residence or at the body dump site, and that a foreign hair found under Danielle’s body was not his. In defense, Dusek argued that it is plausible for an intruder to enter a home without leaving trace evidence, especially if he is taking appropriate precautions.Conversely, Dusek argued, the nature and volume of Danielle's trace evidence in Westerfield's home and motor home, and on his jacket, allows no reasonable explanation other than guilt.

Prosecution
The forensic evidence presented by the prosecution included Danielle's blood stains on Westerfield's jacket and on the floor of his motor home, Danielle's fingerprints in the motor home, hairs from the van Dam family dog on Westerfield's motor home bed comforter, hairs consistent with Danielle's on the sheet of his bed, and matching acrylic fibers found on Danielle's body and in Westerfield's home, among other evidence

Forensic Entomology
Law enforcement officials called in forensic entomologist David Faulker to study the signs of insect infestation on the body to try to gauge when Danielle had died.

But lead defense attorney Steven Feldman argued in his opening statement that scientific evidence would prove his client could not have killed Danielle. As it turned out, the prosecution never called Faulker to the stand and he was called by Feldman as a defense witness.

Early in the trial, San Diego County Medical Examiner Brian Blackbourne testified that the girl could have been dead from 10 days to six weeks when her body was found.

Faulkner testified July 10 that his analysis of the life cycles of the insects found on Danielle's body showed it wasn't available to insects until sometime between Feb. 16 and 18.

Danielle’s body wasn’t in such a remote area. It was only 13 miles in a straight line from her home, and was off a busy road.

While it’s possible for an intruder to enter a home and not leave any fingerprints by simply wearing gloves, it’s not so easy to not shed any hairs. We shed hairs at the rate of 50 to 100 a day. This intruder was in Danielle’s house for an hour, probably in Danielle’s bedroom for nearly all that time, and so should have shed several hairs there, but none of Westerfield’s hairs were found. Probably more important, he should have shed many fibers from his clothes, but again none were found. And most important of all, he should have left his scent behind, yet the police dogs couldn’t detect that. And Westerfield sweats profusely, so his scent should have been particularly easy to detect.

There was actually very little Danielle trace evidence in Westerfield’s home and motor home, especially considering how long she was there and the nature of the crimes. She was there for perhaps a little more than two days, during which time she could have shed up to 200 hairs, yet only 14 which might have been hers were found. (And only 24 dog hairs which might have been from her dog.) Only five fibers which might have come from her carpets were found. Only one fingerprint which might have been hers. And only two blood stains, both small, from a presumed sexual assault. And neither stain was in his bedroom. They could more likely have come from a nosebleed. And only one acrylic fiber which might have come from his home was found on her body. Trace evidence consisting of hairs and fibers is easily spread from one room to another, so finding it in a bedroom or on bedding, or even in another house or vehicle, is weak evidence.

Faulkner testified that the insects found on Danielle's body showed it wasn't available to insects until sometime between February 16 and 18. This is consistent with the Medical Examiner’s dates, and is long after Westerfield was under 24-hour police surveillance. The prosecution tried to argue that there was a long delay in insects finding the body, but there was no evidence to explain such a long delay. So this is strong proof of Westerfield’s innocence. The fact that the prosecution didn’t call law enforcement’s own forensic entomologist to the stand, shows that they knew, in their heart of hearts, that he is innocent.

No evidence of Westerfield found in the van Dam residence or at the body dump site, the entomology evidence excluded him, the dog scent evidence excluded him, very little evidence of Danielle in his house or motor home and easily explained, evidence of someone else in the van Dam residence and at the dump site. This evidence - and lack of evidence - allows no reasonable explanation other than his innocence. It should have been a no-brainer.

About Danielle
September 22,1994 - Febraury 2002
7 years old
Attended Creekside elementary located in
Sabre Springs, San Diego, California
Danielle's Parents
Brenda and Damon van Dam
Both smoke marijuana and have affairs

Night of disappearence
Feb. 1 , 2002
Danielle's mother was out partying with friends at a local bar. She reported that she say David Westerfield there.
Mother came home with friends around 2am, found one of her friends in bed with Damon (her husband).
Both eventually went to bed without checking on their kids.

David Westerfield
Born February 25, 1952
Successful, self-employed engineer
Owned a motor home
Lived 2 houses down from the van Dam's.
Divorced with 2 children in college.

Jan. 2 - Parentscalled Police that Danielle was missing
(Also missing is Westerfield with his RV)
Jan. 4 - Westerfield shows up at the Dry Cleaners with various items such as blankets, pillows, and a jacket.
Jan. 4 - Westerfield is put on 24 hour surveillance.
Jan. 5 - RV and other items get impounded to be tested on.
(Danielle's blood is found on his clothing and in the RV).
Jan. 22 - Westerfield is arrested for kidnapping Danielle.
Jan. 27 - Danielle's decomposed body is found around a dump on Dehasa Rd.

Forensic's Part

There were 3 entomologists working on this case, they stated that insects started showing up between Feb. 12 - Feb. 23.
Conviction

Danielle’s parents were both “swingers”. I’m not sure if that counts as having “affairs”.

The party was a “girls’ night out”. The partygoers consumed alcohol - apparently too much - and drew attention to themselves by behaving in a sexually provocative way (as they had the previous Friday), they even invited strangers home for sex (but those invitations were declined). And Danielle’s mother didn’t just see Westerfield at the bar, there was also some interaction between them.

Brenda’s friend was not IN the bed with Damon, she was merely ON the bed while Damon was IN the bed.

The January dates should of course be February. Those dates show how quickly the police decided he was the culprit, even though he had no criminal history and often went on trips in his motor home.

Westerfield was “missing” at the time Danielle was reported missing (Saturday morning) because he had just left home, but he returned home that afternoon (looking for his wallet), and was back at home early Monday morning after his weekend trip. And both the van Dams and a neighbor had his business card, so the police could have phoned him while he was away.

He had stopped off at the dry cleaners on his way home. It was pillow cases he handed in, not pillows. And cleaning of the blankets had been pre-planned, as this was the off season for camping.

One small and faint stain of Danielle’s blood was reported found on his jacket (even though the dry cleaners didn’t see it), and one drop on his RV carpet (it wasn’t photographed or measured). So did those stains actually exist?

Danielle’s body wasn’t “decomposed”, it was still decomposing, and the degree of decomposition was only moderate, pointing to a shorter PMI (time since death).

Three entomologist testified for the defense, and the given dates are the combined dates they calculated. In addition, one entomologist testified for the prosecution: his dates were February 9 to 14. The entomology evidence is important because insects normally show up within hours of death. The latest Westerfield could have killed Danielle and dumped her body was very early on February 4, so the insects should have showed up on that day at the latest. So these dates exclude Westerfield as the culprit. Even the prosecution’s entomologist excluded him.

In my thinking, there had to have been some covering of the body when it was carried to its final resting place. That covering may well have retarded the fly /maggot infestation. There always are missing links. Perhaps today, with advances in criminal studies, there are new types of information that might weigh on the scale to guilt or innocence. 16 years.. For me, personally, I have peace with my conclusion that Westerfield is the perpetrator--yet I would always want to see or read further examination in areas of doubt. To my thinking, even though there are unanswered questions, guilt was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

If that covering had been left on the body, it might well have retarded infestation, but probably by only a few hours, and not more than two days, unless it was a really good covering. By which I mean very tightly tied and impenetrable, so presumably very tightly woven or made of something like plastic or rubber. Maybe a tarpaulin? And even then the flies might have laid their eggs on the outside of the covering.

Decomposition would have continued with or without a covering. And such a covering would likely have accelerated decomposition (kept heat in, cold out, prevented evaporation and drying out). And the degree of decomposition affects which species are attracted to the body. The species found on her body are simply not consistent with a more advanced stage of decomposition.

And what happened to that covering? It was never found. It seems hardly likely that someone would have taken it. From a dead body. A decomposing body. Could it have blown away? So far away? Because they did search the area. How did it become loose or untied? A fibrous material should have left numerous fibers behind. Those short blue-gray nylon fibers have been suggested, but there were apparently only 20 of them, which is surely far too few. If an animal had torn it off, it would probably have been shredded, with pieces left behind, caught in the dense brush.

Brainstorming for explanations is good, but you have to examine in detail whatever theories you come up with, to see if they are practical and plausible.

To sum it all up, there is simply no evidence to support the theory that a covering delayed infestation long enough for Westerfield to have been the perpetrator. And there should have been such evidence.

Apart perhaps from the effect of bleach on insect infestation, I’ve never considered the possibility that new advances in criminal studies might tip the scales one way or the other in this case. I’ve always believed that, based on the evidence available at the time, there was more than enough evidence to establish innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. I also believe that, had it not been for the emotional aspects (those video clips, the angry public, Samantha Runnion), the 2002 verdict would have been “not guilty”.

Nevertheless, we should keep our eyes open for any such advances. I’m also hoping that new evidence might emerge. Maybe somebody will say something. Maybe they’ll test Selby’s DNA against the existing evidence in this case - which they should have done at the time. Maybe they’ll run that evidence through CODIS and IAFIS - which they should have done at the time. Many cases are solved those ways.

It is only my opinion. Your response is so well crafted. I would doubt myself, but as I try-I am reminded of the hair, blood, and fingerprints. I am in agreement about the Zeitgeists and the Runnion case---BUT we have no way of knowing. You are right, there is no evidence of a body covering. It was simply not conceivable for a person to carry a dead child, naked, and uncovered. Therefore conjecture... I, too, wish some additional information would emerge. I do NOT believe in the death penalty--for anyone--ever.

If that covering had been left on the body, it might well have retarded infestation, but probably by only a few hours, and not more than two days, unless it was a really good covering. By which I mean very tightly tied and impenetrable, so presumably very tightly woven or made of something like plastic or rubber. Maybe a tarpaulin? And even then the flies might have laid their eggs on the outside of the covering.

Decomposition would have continued with or without a covering. And such a covering would likely have accelerated decomposition (kept heat in, cold out, prevented evaporation and drying out). And the degree of decomposition affects which species are attracted to the body. The species found on her body are simply not consistent with a more advanced stage of decomposition.

And what happened to that covering? It was never found. It seems hardly likely that someone would have taken it. From a dead body. A decomposing body. Could it have blown away? So far away? Because they did search the area. How did it become loose or untied? A fibrous material should have left numerous fibers behind. Those short blue-gray nylon fibers have been suggested, but there were apparently only 20 of them, which is surely far too few. If an animal had torn it off, it would probably have been shredded, with pieces left behind, caught in the dense brush.

Brainstorming for explanations is good, but you have to examine in detail whatever theories you come up with, to see if they are practical and plausible.

To sum it all up, there is simply no evidence to support the theory that a covering delayed infestation long enough for Westerfield to have been the perpetrator. And there should have been such evidence.

Apart perhaps from the effect of bleach on insect infestation, I’ve never considered the possibility that new advances in criminal studies might tip the scales one way or the other in this case. I’ve always believed that, based on the evidence available at the time, there was more than enough evidence to establish innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. I also believe that, had it not been for the emotional aspects (those video clips, the angry public, Samantha Runnion), the 2002 verdict would have been “not guilty”.

Nevertheless, we should keep our eyes open for any such advances. I’m also hoping that new evidence might emerge. Maybe somebody will say something. Maybe they’ll test Selby’s DNA against the existing evidence in this case - which they should have done at the time. Maybe they’ll run that evidence through CODIS and IAFIS - which they should have done at the time. Many cases are solved those ways.

IDK there was a person in here for quite awhile (sam10) that suggested the body was in a cooler and some transient dumped it out so they could use the cooler.

(btw good to see you sheeee)

__________________
The spider never understands what the fly is complaining about.

Perhaps some newly examined factor will clink a metric on either side of the guilt issue. Yet, there is no likely execution in the forseeable future. That gladdens my heart. I do not wonder if Westerfield is guilty. In my thinking, there is a well evidenced conviction. But I do not want any person executed AND I will be open to a plot-twist, should one arise. Good to see you too GG!

It is only my opinion. Your response is so well crafted. I would doubt myself, but as I try-I am reminded of the hair, blood, and fingerprints. I am in agreement about the Zeitgeists and the Runnion case---BUT we have no way of knowing. You are right, there is no evidence of a body covering. It was simply not conceivable for a person to carry a dead child, naked, and uncovered. Therefore conjecture... I, too, wish some additional information would emerge. I do NOT believe in the death penalty--for anyone--ever.

Thank you for your praise. I hope I can do as well with this reply. I’m gratified you agree with what I wrote then, and I hope this reply will produce the same result.

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. I couldn’t be an executioner myself, but I believe it can be a deterrent if you have an effective police force and justice system, and they quickly catch and convict criminals and carry out the sentence. On the other hand, since taking an interest in true crime stories, I have discovered how easy it is to convict the wrong person. That’s horrifying.

You refer to the hair, blood, and fingerprints. My first answer is a general one: they were neighbors. Where the victim and defendant are strangers, any evidence connecting them is strong evidence of guilt. But when they know each other (or even could plausibly have had contact, even indirect contact), the situation changes fundamentally. Then it’s not surprising if there is such evidence. In fact, in a case like this, where the victim and two other family members had actually been in his house just days before the crime, you can be sure there would be such evidence. In addition, there was the socializing, especially the dirty dancing, just a couple of days earlier.

But you are probably thinking more of the evidence in his RV as, unlike with his house, there was no evidence she had ever innocently been inside it. Yet until recently (November), that RV had been parked for long periods in the streets outside his house, and therefore also very close to her house. She would have walked past it many times: on the way to and from her friends, the park, and her school - and probably while walking the family dog. And the children also played outside. We also know she was headstrong and adventurous, and on at least one occasion had climbed over their side gate to get out to the front of her house and the street. And we know that he didn’t always keep his RV locked - and not just while loading and unloading - which is not surprising as it was a safe neighborhood. So she must have had numerous opportunities to go inside it and so leave evidence of herself behind.

As soon as Westerfield became a suspect - which was just two days after she went missing, and therefore while the police were still canvassing the neighborhood - you’d have expected them to ask not just her brothers but also the neighbors if they had ever seen her in his RV, or seen any children in it. But there was no evidence that they ever did ask.

When there is known (or even possible) innocent contact between defendant and victim, you have to look much more closely at the evidence connecting them. The quantity, type and location are important in determining if it can be innocently explained or if it points to guilt.

In this case, the quantity was small: just one handprint (from a crime which could have lasted two days, in two locations) and two small blood stains (from a crime which should have produced a lot of blood). There were more hairs - 14 human and 24 dog - but that’s not a lot considering we shed 50 to 100 hairs a day - so there could have been as many as 200 human hairs. (I don’t know the rate for dogs, but seeing they are generally much hairier than people, that 24 also doesn’t seem a lot.) So it’s not surprising that the prosecutor argued that Westerfield went on a cleaning spree. He (the prosecutor) knew full well that the small quantity of evidence found didn’t support his guilty scenario, in fact it argued against his scenario.

Of those three types of evidence, blood is the most important (especially in this type of case, as it indicates injury), followed by fingerprints. Hair isn’t so important because it is shed copiously and everywhere and is easily transferred from one place to another, without the person necessarily having actually been at those places where the hair is found.

The location of most of that evidence also points to an innocent explanation. Neither bloodstain was on his bed or bedding, or even in his bedroom. (And remember there were two bedrooms here: one in his house and the other in his RV). The first assault would logically have been in his house, where she would have been in the first four or so hours immediately after the kidnapping, yet neither bloodstain was there. The handprint was above the RV bed, but it was also alongside the window, so an adventurous child who had sneaked into the RV could have gone to that location to look out the window (or to jump on the bed).

Of the human hairs, 11 were in his house and only 3 in his RV, which points to her having spent much more time in his house than his RV (which is contrary to the prosecution scenario). In fact the few in his RV could more likely have been transferred there from his house (Locard Exchange Principle) rather than having been shed there directly. Similarly with the dog hairs: 19 in his house, and only 3 in his RV and 2 at the dry-cleaners. Nobody claimed that the van Dam dog had been at the dry-cleaners, so those hairs must have got there by Locard transfer. In more detail, 3 of the human hairs and 18 (so nearly all) of the dog hairs, were in the lint from his dryer, which was found in a trash can in his garage. Bearing in mind that he had little time to do any laundry after the kidnapping (he was approached by police very soon after arriving back at home), this implies that those hairs were shed on his laundry which was out during the cookie sale earlier that week, otherwise they wouldn’t have got as far as that trash can. Of the remaining 8 human hairs in his house, 2 were with his laundry and 6 on his bed. Now that 6 is obviously suspicious, but again that bedding could have been among the laundry which was out during the cookie sale, the hairs could have been shed on it then, and the bedding then taken up to his bed. She was pushing on his laundry on his couch during the cookie sale, and may even have been jumping on the couch, which would have increased the rate of shedding. And her hairs may also have got onto her mother’s or brother’s clothing, and been shed from there. The precise location of the hairs on the bedding could have helped determine guilt or innocence (e.g. hairs from someone in the bed wouldn’t have got on the underside of the fitted sheet), but we weren’t given that information. None of the 3 in his RV were in the bedroom. The single dog hair in his house which wasn’t in the lint was in his laundry (so no dog hairs in his bedroom). None of the 3 dog hairs in his RV were in the bedroom, but the 2 at the dry-cleaners were on a comforter.

When was that evidence in the RV left there? There isn’t just one possibility, there are two. It might not have been left during a kidnapping the previous weekend, it might instead have been innocently left at some time during the previous year. So there’s the question of dating that evidence. There is evidence that the evidence in the RV was old: neither the scent dog nor the cadaver dog detected her scent there, which they should easily have done had she been in that vehicle as recently as the previous weekend. (Similarly, the dogs didn’t detect her scent in his house, so further proof she hadn’t been in his environment that weekend.) And all three human hairs in the RV were blonde, yet her hair was darkening, indicating that these hairs may have been shed at a previous time. Similarly, one of those hairs was slightly longer than the length of her hair after her recent haircut, again pointing to it having been shed at an earlier time. The bloodstain on his jacket was faint, indicating it may have been old and the jacket had previously been dry cleaned. It is generally stated that DNA cannot be dated. But one of the human hairs in the RV only gave a partial DNA profile (12 out of 13 markers), suggesting it was old and starting to degrade. Similarly, one of the DNA markers from the blood stain in the RV didn’t show any DNA types when it was first tested, so it may have been old and starting to degrade. And similarly with the dog hairs. They were all of poor quality (though that’s not unusual). None could be nuclear DNA tested. Apparently most weren’t mitochondrial DNA tested either. Of those few which were tested, one in his house didn’t give any results, and the other one didn’t give a complete profile. Of those in his RV and at the cleaners, 2 or 3 gave a complete result, the others didn’t. Plus, no one saw or heard her that weekend, either with him, or near him, or at any of the places he went to: and he went to several places, and there were people in close proximity at several of those places.

Is all the above evidence trustworthy? So next I want to look at the validity and strength of that evidence, how much weighting we should give it. The jacket may have been in his house during the cookie sale, and Danielle had recently been scratched by the family dog, possibly even on the day of the cookie sale - the claimed date of the scratch was changed from before the cookie sale to after, which is suspicious. So, even though her mother said it hadn’t drawn blood, there is a possibility that blood got onto it then. The jacket was handed in to his regular dry-cleaners on his way home on Monday morning, but they didn’t see that bloodstain. It was photographed by the criminalists when they received it from the dry-cleaners, and an enlargement of that photo was shown in court, but the stain can’t be seen on that either. So the question arises: was the stain on that jacket at that time? It wasn’t examined for blood spatter. And it appears to be a horizontal stain, whereas it would have been vertical if it had been formed by blood dripping from her while Westerfield was carrying her over his shoulder. When the crime lab sent that blood to an outside laboratory for independent DNA verification, they didn’t send the stain itself but merely an extract from it, so can we be sure that this extract actually came from that stain? The other bloodstain was a single drop on the RV carpet. It wasn’t photographed or measured, which raises questions as to whether it really existed.

The handprint was matched on the rear of the knuckles, so not the usual fingertip match. That part of the fingers doesn’t appear to have as much variation as the fingertips, raising the question of whether it is as unique, and therefore whether matches on it are as reliable. Also, the match was made on rehydrated skin, so the question arises: was there any distortion of the skin during the rehydration process? No evidence was produced during the trial to allay those fears.

Danielle had very recently (the previous Saturday) had a haircut, so if any of her hairs in his RV had frayed ends instead of cut ends, this would have indicated they had been shed before the haircut, and were therefore not from the kidnapping, but we weren’t given that information.

The human hairs were matched to her visually (which isn’t a very reliable method) and, with one exception, on mitochondrial DNA not nuclear DNA (so they couldn’t say they definitely came from her, they might also have come from a maternal relative, such as her mother and brothers). The one exception was one of the hairs in the RV, and that was matched on only 12 of the 13 nuclear DNA markers. Similarly, the dog hairs were matched to the van Dam dog visually, and some on mitochondrial DNA, none on nuclear DNA, and some of the mitochondrial DNA matches were incomplete, and anyway mitochondrial matches are even less certain for dogs than for humans. So the identification with the van Dam dog is not certain for any of those hairs, and for most of them it’s even more uncertain than others.

There’s also the question of possible dishonesty: planting of evidence. Two of the case’s most prominent and involved detectives are questionable. They tried to violate Westerfield’s constitutional rights by visiting him in prison after he had retained a lawyer (the one detective explained he was overcome by emotion) - and they weren’t disciplined for that - and they had previously falsified evidence in the affidavit for a warrant in a murder investigation. These detectives had been in Westerfield’s SUV at around midnight on Monday, and should have seen (apparently did see) his dry-cleaning receipts in the car. The receipts didn’t have the name of the dry-cleaners, and the police claimed it took them a long time to discover which cleaners they were. However, one of those two detectives used the same dry-cleaners, and so would have immediately recognized which cleaners Westerfield had been to, and could have then gone there and potentially planted Danielle’s blood on the jacket, which would have been before the police officially knew which cleaners it was at, but after it had been cleaned (which could explain why the cleaners didn’t see it). And he had apparently handled that jacket afterwards, soon after it was in police custody (there is evidence that his initials were on the chain of custody), giving him a second opportunity to plant blood on it. Also, both of them were in his RV while the criminalists were examining it, and even handed some evidence to a criminalist: why didn’t they just point it out and let her collect it herself? So another opportunity for interfering with the evidence.

To sum up, there are numerous reasons for doubting the blood, fingerprint and hair evidence. They do not prove Westerfield’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am daunted by reading this very complete, detailed rebuttal--respectfully--I disagree. I am 99% certain that Danielle never went gratuitously unnoticed into the RV. The meticulous cleaning verve exhibited by Westerfield in the days following the murder, including the trip to the dry cleaners in his boxer shorts---the evidence in the RV itself is clear to me.
I work closely with the College of Public Safety in my county. It is a certain mindset that Forensic scientists have. They are fascinating people who are dedicated to their science. The magnitude of changing the fact of the evidence is NOT acceptable as a supposition, to me, based on my experience with these folk. I mean- like the Parkland shooter and other anomalies of spirit--they DO exist--but I recall the demeanor of these folk and found them to be very believable at the time of the trial.
I guess we must agree to disagree.
But I truly appreciate the detail of your response and I will reread and try to take it all in once more at least.
Joys of the day!
s

“--respectfully--I disagree. I am 99% certain that Danielle never went gratuitously unnoticed into the RV.”
Why are you so certain? How can you be? If the police had questioned her brothers and the neighborhood children, and if all had denied that any children ever went into it, then you’d have a point. But because of several factors - such as the high walls the RV was parked alongside, and the curves in the roads - few people would have been able to see a child doing so. And she was adventurous and headstrong (which was initially withheld, until after his conviction). And why didn’t the police dogs detect her scent there? And how do you explain the evidence that the hairs and blood were old? And so on - I’ve already discussed these issues in some detail.

“The meticulous cleaning verve exhibited by Westerfield in the days following the murder”
You were undoubtedly influenced by Parga’s extravagant claims of how clean his SUV was, and the disproved claims in the media that the RV smelled of bleach, and Dusek’s extreme claims in his closing arguments. But there was hardly any evidence of cleaning: he was doing some laundry (which included his son’s), a few dry-cleaning items (including pre-planned items), and a bit of wiping down of his RV, all of which is understandable and was normal after returning from a trip to dusty, sandy places.

“including the trip to the dry cleaners in his boxer shorts”
The cleaners were on his route home, so it wasn’t a special trip, and he wasn’t in his boxer shorts, that was Dusek’s unfounded claim, he was probably wearing the same shorts he wore in the desert.

“the evidence in the RV itself is clear to me.”
So little of it, and doubts about the lone hand print, the single drop of blood wasn’t properly processed, evidence that these items were old, only partial testing of most items, no source found of the fibers, and hairs and fibers are so easily spread - as proved by the dog hairs at the cleaners. Again, I’ve discussed these issues.

“I work closely with the College of Public Safety in my county. It is a certain mindset that Forensic scientists have. They are fascinating people who are dedicated to their science.”
Nevertheless, they are also human, and suffer from the normal human weaknesses. The San Diego Crime Lab had a close relationship with the prosecution, which is dangerous, so the mindset of those particular scientists (unlike the ones you know) wasn’t what it should have been. And these particular scientists believed him guilty, and were only searching for evidence implicating him; that, in and of itself, shows that something was seriously wrong.

“The magnitude of changing the fact of the evidence is NOT acceptable as a supposition, to me, based on my experience with these folk.”
Changing the fact of the evidence: I presume you are referring to the possibility of evidence planting, which I mentioned (though there’s also deliberately switching labels, or suppressing evidence). That’s just one possibility, and I wouldn’t rate it as the most likely one, just as a possible one. And we’re not talking only about the scientists here, the police also handled evidence, and I would be especially wary of two of the detectives, with their history and how they behaved on this case.

“I mean- like the Parkland shooter and other anomalies of spirit--they DO exist--but I recall the demeanor of these folk and found them to be very believable at the time of the trial.”
I only took a serious interest in this case after the trial was over, so I can’t comment authoritatively on their demeanor while testifying. But I find their performance on this case - what they did and especially what they failed to do - deeply disturbing. They were only looking for evidence against Westerfield, and ignored evidence which might clear him. Which, sadly, is not surprising, given that they believed him guilty, and that the crime lab had a close relationship with the prosecution - which should be a no no for scientists. They spent days trying to prove that orange fiber came from his afghan, whereas they didn’t even submit the unknown DNA on her bed to CODIS!

Because they really believed him guilty, and really believed the evidence they presented against him, they WOULD have been believable. And because of victim/defendant proximity and known innocent contact, there WOULD have been evidence, it just wouldn’t prove guilt. I’m actually preparing a post about the crime lab’s work, which will provide more detailed reasons why I am critical of them.

“I guess we must agree to disagree. But I truly appreciate the detail of your response and I will reread and try to take it all in once more at least.”
Thank you, and you should find it very helpful and informative - and, I hope, an eye-opener.